Channel Assigning by * Invocations

2 months 1 week ago • 276 views

When a channel is mis-assigned on a video, you have to do *nochannel then add the other ones all back on one by one. Wouldn't it be easier to do *nocomedy or *nomusic instead? I'm sure this was asked before, but I'm sure as hell not looking through the sift talk posts and I also can see no benefit to the current system.

comments (13)

bookmarks (0)

Comments

I'd slap some * Quality on your happy-cat-ass for saying this, but unfortunately, I'm out of power points. I hope someone slaps you for this. What a fanfuckingtastic idea this is. It would be a whole lot easier to remove a single channel with one invocation, than to have to use 6 different invocations to do the same. Even better would be to allow for the editing of channels the same way we currently edit tags.

written by arsenault185

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Yes, it would be easier.

written by doogle

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

I would like to submit the idea, that we should be able to clearly see what the invocation for a channel is as well. For instance on http://www.videosift.com/channels it could be like this:

"The Serenity of Nature video collection (*nature)"
"The Clouds and Beyond (*spacy)"

and so on.

The reverse *nomusic sounds like a good idea.

written by gwiz665

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Moving post to Nature, Spacy Talk - requested by gwiz665.

written by siftbot

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

^LOL *unnature *unspacy

(or for the time being *nochannel)

written by Zeph

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

Honestly, I've never been bothered by the few extra words to type, but this is a really good suggestion. This has come up lots of times before, but it would never fly because all the other suggestions were something like "*remove <channel_name>". Without a major retooling, the invocation system can't take parameters, but this sidesteps that whole issue. It's simple and elegant. Editing channels like tags would be nice too, but probably requires a lot more work to code up.

I'd give you *quality, but I got no powa.

written by jonny

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

It'd be nice but isn't a problem often enough to get Lucky to do more coding work. Remember, he's doing all this work for virtually nothing so he only codes things that're especially crucial.

written by Krupo

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

This really shouldn't require much if any coding. It's basically just a matter of adding the appropriate invocations to the list and linking them to the remove_from_channel function that must already exist.

Aside - that channel close tag in my comment above is weird. I didn't write it. Does the comment system now automatically insert a closing tag if one isn't found to match a previous tag? That's pretty cool.

written by jonny

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

If it is too much coding, then never mind. I just thought it would be easier than this. Also, the current system is so strange, it boggles my mind to think of why they established that in the first place.

written by randomize

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 0 ▼ | flag spam (0)

>> ^randomize:
If it is too much coding, then never mind.

yeah, I was basically making an educated guess on how much coding it would take. If it is more than an hour's worth of work, it's probably not worth it.

I just thought it would be easier than this. Also, the current system is so strange, it boggles my mind to think of why they established that in the first place.

It probably has to do with the fact that most channels started out as collectives in the old system. Vids could only be in one collective, and I think once a vid was added to a collective, it couldn't be removed except by the collective owner, not by invocation.

written by jonny

| 2 months 1 week ago | CH

▲ 1 ▼ | flag spam (0)